U.s. Drone Kills 5 Suspected Militants In Pakistan's Tribal Region

[News_Editor]

U.S. drone kills 5 suspected militants in Pakistan's tribal region < br />

2013-02-07 11:01:00 GMT+7 (ICT)

MIRANSHAH, PAKISTAN (BNO NEWS) -- At least five suspected militants were killed Wednesday when a U.S. drone targeted a suspected militant compound in Pakistan's volatile tribal region, Pakistani intelligence officials said. There were no immediate reports of civilian casualties.

The unmanned U.S. drone fired at least six missiles at a residential building in the Spinwam area of Pakistan's volatile North Waziristan tribal area, which is also near the Afghan border. The targeted house, which was completely destroyed, was allegedly being used by militants.

Pakistani intelligence officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said five bodies were retrieved at the scene. "We don't know their identities," one official said. Another official said all those killed were believed to be militants, and their were no immediate claims of civilian casualties.

The strike comes after Pakistan's Ambassador to the U.S., Sherry Rehman, criticized the America's use of drones, describing them as a "direct violation of [Pakistan's] sovereignty," as there is no policy or approval of such attacks. So far this year alone, nearly 50 people have been killed in similar drone strikes in Pakistan.

Also on Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney emphasized its counter-terrorism efforts are designed to limit civilian casualties. "I think it's fair to say that far fewer civilians lose their lives in an effort to go after senior leadership in al-Qaeda along the lines [of drone strikes] as opposed to an effort to invade a country with hundreds of thousands of troops and take cities and towns," he said.

Last month, Ben Emmerson, the United Nations (UN) special rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights, said the UN is opening an investigation into the deaths caused by U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, as well as Palestinian regions. The probe will also investigate the deaths and injuries of civilians as a result of U.S. drone strikes.

U.S. drone strikes have become relatively common during President Barack Obama's tenure in which the unmanned aircraft have targeted suspected militants, their hideouts, and training facilities. However, the number of civilians also killed during such attacks has remained uncertain.

The total number of deaths caused by drone strikes in 2012 stood well over 300, according to the Washington-based think tank New America Foundation, and as many as 3,239 individuals have been killed as a result of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan alone between 2004 and January 2013.

About a year ago, in January 2012, President Obama, for the first time during his presidency, publicly acknowledged that U.S. drones regularly strike suspected militants along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. He confirmed that many of these strikes are carried out in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan, targeting al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects in tough terrain.

Pakistan's government has been public in its stance against the drone strikes, as local residents and officials have blamed them for killing innocent civilians and motivating young men to join the Taliban. Details about the alleged militants are usually not provided, and the U.S. government does not comment publicly on the strikes.

However, the U.S. has used them as an important tool in their fight against terrorism. In June 2012, al-Qaeda deputy leader Abu Yahya al-Libi was killed when an unmanned U.S. drone fired at least two missiles at a compound and a nearby pickup truck in the village of Hesokhel, located in the Mir Ali district just east of Miranshah. It was the most serious blow to al-Qaeda since U.S. Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden during a secret military operation in the Pakistani city of Abbotabad in May 2011.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2013-02-07

[Steely Dan]

Funnily enough when the AQ/Taliban terrorists machine gun a bus full of Shiite pilgrims or blow up a Shiite mosque the victims are never 'suspected' or 'alleged' civilians, however when U.S drones take out some of these savages the conditional tense features prominently in every press report. I wonder why?

[simple1]

Funnily enough when the AQ/Taliban terrorists machine gun a bus full of Shiite pilgrims or blow up a Shiite mosque the victims are never 'suspected' or 'alleged' civilians, however when U.S drones take out some of these savages the conditional tense features prominently in every press report. I wonder why?

It's generally accepted that AQ/Taliban terrorists (Sunni) are endeavouring to destablise the State & get extremist organisations into power by trying to trigger civil war by killings Shiite civilians. Just as Al Qaeda in Iraq tried to do, eventually the Iraqi tribal/village leaders got sick of the killings and turned on Al Qaeda operatives.

[HeijoshinCool]

Well, there you go. They don't have to be terrorists anymore. Just have to be suspected terrorists.

"They Call It Justice."

Coming soon to a neighborhood near you.

[F430murci]

From what I understand, the drone strikes are generally more accurate and less indisciminate that conventional strikes. Much intelligence occurs prior to the drone strikes and additional intelligence occurs to confirm targets while drone selects targets. F18s simply whiz high over head and fire on suspected coordinates. Drones actually examine target, return intelligence, obtain confirmation and them fire.

Seems like civil rights groups or the bad guys being attacked are just making a play with phrases like "suspected terrorists" to try and sway public sympathy against what is actually the most effective and accurate tool for surgically taking out enemy targets.

[Exsexyman]

From what I understand, the drone strikes are generally more accurate and less indisciminate that conventional strikes. Much intelligence occurs prior to the drone strikes and additional intelligence occurs to confirm targets while drone selects targets. F18s simply whiz high over head and fire on suspected coordinates. Drones actually examine target, return intelligence, obtain confirmation and them fire.

Seems like civil rights groups or the bad guys being attacked are just making a play with phrases like "suspected terrorists" to try and sway public sympathy against what is actually the most effective and accurate tool for surgically taking out enemy targets.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-killing-49-people-known-terrorist-Pakistan.html#axzz2KDNsl27Z

This is just one of many reports that would suggest you understand wrong. It would seem to me that drones are a perfect terrorist creation device. For each civilian killed probably a dozen or so terrorists are created. It is self perpetuating, which of course suits the CIA very well, it justifies their existence , not to mention their huge, largely unaccountable budget. It's not rocket science is it. If The US blew up your daughter's wedding, or your brother's funeral with a drone, would you be more or less likely to hate America and seek retribution? Answers on a postcard to, POTUS, The White House, Washington DC.

[jamhar]

I would rather have the drone strikes over troops on the ground anyday.

My understanding is that potus signs off on every strike.

Thats the way i want it. compete accountability.

Its cost effective,

less casualties,

higher strike probability,

focus on fewer, higher profile targets,

fewer friendly forces in harms way

did i mention its cheaper?

you'll have to point me to a negative vs forces on the ground.

[F430murci]

From what I understand, the drone strikes are generally more accurate and less indisciminate that conventional strikes. Much intelligence occurs prior to the drone strikes and additional intelligence occurs to confirm targets while drone selects targets. F18s simply whiz high over head and fire on suspected coordinates. Drones actually examine target, return intelligence, obtain confirmation and them fire.

Seems like civil rights groups or the bad guys being attacked are just making a play with phrases like "suspected terrorists" to try and sway public sympathy against what is actually the most effective and accurate tool for surgically taking out enemy targets.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-killing-49-people-known-terrorist-Pakistan.html#axzz2KDNsl27Z

This is just one of many reports that would suggest you understand wrong. It would seem to me that drones are a perfect terrorist creation device. For each civilian killed probably a dozen or so terrorists are created. It is self perpetuating, which of course suits the CIA very well, it justifies their existence , not to mention their huge, largely unaccountable budget. It's not rocket science is it. If The US blew up your daughter's wedding, or your brother's funeral with a drone, would you be more or less likely to hate America and seek retribution? Answers on a postcard to, POTUS, The White House, Washington DC.

No one is a terrorist and everyone is always innocent. Not sure how B1 drooping bombs from 40k feet or higher is more accurate or how an F18 or Stealth dropping ordinance is less indiscriminate. Cruise missiles launched from miles away also seem to have less safeguards built in.

I trust US millitary intelligence is not undertaking to intentionally slaughter innocents. That is the mode of operation of those that the drones take out. Drones are slower and can provide much better detail of targets to provide confirmation before the shot.

[simple1]

I would rather have the drone strikes over troops on the ground anyday.

My understanding is that potus signs off on every strike.

Thats the way i want it. compete accountability.

Its cost effective,

less casualties,

higher strike probability,

focus on fewer, higher profile targets,

fewer friendly forces in harms way

did i mention its cheaper?

you'll have to point me to a negative vs forces on the ground.

You really believe that drone targets are not identified by human resources on the ground? This is one of the concerns that they are being used to settle disputes between locals who are not necessarily terrorists - same as happened with the rendition program run by the CIA.

[FDog]

I would rather have the drone strikes over troops on the ground anyday.

My understanding is that potus signs off on every strike.

Thats the way i want it. compete accountability.

Its cost effective,

less casualties,

higher strike probability,

focus on fewer, higher profile targets,

fewer friendly forces in harms way

did i mention its cheaper?

you'll have to point me to a negative vs forces on the ground.

You really believe that drone targets are not identified by human resources on the ground? This is one of the concerns that they are being used to settle disputes between locals who are not necessarily terrorists - same as happened with the rendition program run by the CIA.

If they are so good then they wouldn't be referred to as suspected terrorists in a house allegedly used by militants.

Surely they can do better than that.

The US has become the new Al Qaeda.

[Pakboong]

I cut and pasted a piece on the drone war that I thought was interesting. Talks about American Nationalism relative to the use of drones. I am not sure at this point, how much I agree but I did find it intersting.

"Some 85% of U.S.ians, and shrinking rapidly, are theists. Flag worship may be on the decline as well, but its numbers are still high. A majority supports a ban on flag burning. A majority supports the power of the president to kill non-U.S.ians with drones, while a significantly smaller percentage supports the president's power to kill U.S. citizens with drones abroad. That is to say, if the high priest declares someone an enemy of god, many people believe he should have the power to kill that enemy . . . unless that enemy is a U.S. citizen. In secular terms, which make this reality seem all the crazier, many of us support acts of murder based on the citizep of the victim."

http://warisacrime.o...tional-religion

Edited February 11, 2013 by Pakboong

[coma]

Six hellfire missiles to kill just 5 " suspected militants" in 1 compound ? Talk about a waste of taxpayers money.

The strike comes after Pakistan's Ambassador to the U.S., Sherry Rehman, criticized the America's use of drones, describing them as a "direct violation of [Pakistan's] sovereignty," as there is no policy or approval of such attacks.

We have heard this all before however the Pakastani government does nothing to stop drone attacks. And it seems more plausible that they are compliant with these strikes. Let's face facts. These drone attacks are doing the job that the Pakastani government and its military don't have the balls, desire or ability to deal with these militants in this area. Every time they conduct an operation there they get the &lt;deleted&gt; kicked. Back door polotics at it's best.

[maidu]

message to friends and family of hotheads who get a kick out of blowing up innocents (a.k.a. terrorists) ..... stay far away from them, if u don't want to get blown to smithereens.

[Naam]

Six hellfire missiles to kill just 5 " suspected militants" in 1 compound ? Talk about a waste of taxpayers money.

The strike comes after Pakistan's Ambassador to the U.S., Sherry Rehman, criticized the America's use of drones, describing them as a "direct violation of [Pakistan's] sovereignty," as there is no policy or approval of such attacks.

We have heard this all before however the Pakastani government does nothing to stop drone attacks. And it seems more plausible that they are compliant with these strikes. Let's face facts. These drone attacks are doing the job that the Pakastani government and its military don't have the balls, desire or ability to deal with these militants in this area. Every time they conduct an operation there they get the &lt;deleted&gt; kicked. Back door polotics at it's best.

yeah, them Pakastanis knows polotics axcapt when they deal with their neighbours them Undians.

[Naam]

message to friends and family of hotheads who get a kick out of blowing up innocents (a.k.a. terrorists) ..... stay far away from them, if u don't want to get blown to smithereens.

a valuable advice indeed! but too late for the poor souls who did not stay far away when the buildings in some rogue nation were blown up.

[coma]

Six hellfire missiles to kill just 5 " suspected militants" in 1 compound ? Talk about a waste of taxpayers money.

The strike comes after Pakistan's Ambassador to the U.S., Sherry Rehman, criticized the America's use of drones, describing them as a "direct violation of [Pakistan's] sovereignty," as there is no policy or approval of such attacks.

We have heard this all before however the Pakastani government does nothing to stop drone attacks. And it seems more plausible that they are compliant with these strikes. Let's face facts. These drone attacks are doing the job that the Pakastani government and its military don't have the balls, desire or ability to deal with these militants in this area. Every time they conduct an operation there they get the &lt;deleted&gt; kicked. Back door polotics at it's best.

yeah, them Pakastanis knows polotics axcapt when they deal with their neighbours them Undians.

Having a go at my typos I guess. Well done.

[Samuimike1]

Joy Stick Killer Drone Master.

[Samuimike1]

The other side from midnight, you do not see in Reuters

[Steely Dan]

I guess the Swat in Swat valley must be an acronym for Special weapons and tactics. I think that's fair warning to keep away in itself to keep well away.

I agree that in terms of military and political capability to defeat the Taliban the Pakistanis are not up to the task, so the drones are a better option. the hand wringers who fret about the downside have probably not read much about what Sharia law entails, especially when the Taliban are in charge.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Steely Dan

[jamhar]

I would rather have the drone strikes over troops on the ground anyday.

My understanding is that potus signs off on every strike.

Thats the way i want it. compete accountability.

Its cost effective,

less casualties,

higher strike probability,

focus on fewer, higher profile targets,

fewer friendly forces in harms way

did i mention its cheaper?

you'll have to point me to a negative vs forces on the ground.

You really believe that drone targets are not identified by human resources on the ground? This is one of the concerns that they are being used to settle disputes between locals who are not necessarily terrorists - same as happened with the rendition program run by the CIA.

Drones do not replace ground intelligence resources, they augment it.

Drones can however replace ground forces when taking action, at least in the way the US is using drones presently.

I still cant see negatives in using drones in this manor. can you?

[simple1]

I would rather have the drone strikes over troops on the ground anyday.

My understanding is that potus signs off on every strike.

Thats the way i want it. compete accountability.

Its cost effective,

less casualties,

higher strike probability,

focus on fewer, higher profile targets,

fewer friendly forces in harms way

did i mention its cheaper?

you'll have to point me to a negative vs forces on the ground.

You really believe that drone targets are not identified by human resources on the ground? This is one of the concerns that they are being used to settle disputes between locals who are not necessarily terrorists - same as happened with the rendition program run by the CIA.

Drones do not replace ground intelligence resources, they augment it.

Drones can however replace ground forces when taking action, at least in the way the US is using drones presently.

I still cant see negatives in using drones in this manor. can you?

Drones are yet another killing technology, ain't going to change the enemies position/views. Just about every counter insurgency campaign has been bought to a successful conclusion by face to face negotiations, right now that is just not happening. Even Karzai is saying drone attacks are not helping with bringing about peace. All down to your POV,

Latest drone attack has allegedly killed 10 civilians (see URL below), women and children, but that's an unfortunate outcome of war; civilians always suffer more deaths than the armed forces.

http://indiatoday.in...k/1/250191.html

Edited February 14, 2013 by simple1

[Nowhereman60]

Good job America, keep up the good work.

[Scott]

I would rather have the drone strikes over troops on the ground anyday.

My understanding is that potus signs off on every strike.

Thats the way i want it. compete accountability.

Its cost effective,

less casualties,

higher strike probability,

focus on fewer, higher profile targets,

fewer friendly forces in harms way

did i mention its cheaper?

you'll have to point me to a negative vs forces on the ground.

You really believe that drone targets are not identified by human resources on the ground? This is one of the concerns that they are being used to settle disputes between locals who are not necessarily terrorists - same as happened with the rendition program run by the CIA.

Drones do not replace ground intelligence resources, they augment it.

Drones can however replace ground forces when taking action, at least in the way the US is using drones presently.

I still cant see negatives in using drones in this manor. can you?

Drones are yet another killing technology, ain't going to change the enemies position/views. Just about every counter insurgency campaign has been bought to a successful conclusion by face to face negotiations, right now that is just not happening. Even Karzai is saying drone attacks are not helping with bringing about peace. All down to your POV,

Latest drone attack has allegedly killed 10 civilians (see URL below), women and children, but that's an unfortunate outcome of war; civilians always suffer more deaths than the armed forces.

http://indiatoday.in...k/1/250191.html

Please point out where this is a drone attack.

There is another thread which may be about the same thing and it also does not mention the use of drones.

[simple1]

Please point out where this is a drone attack.

There is another thread which may be about the same thing and it also does not mention the use of drones.

http://www.thaivisa....in-afghanistan/

oops you're correct NATO airstrike hit two houses. According to media report, one with the targeted people, the other housing women & children

[Samuimike1]

Obama and the licence to kill American. on FOX news

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NMdT6h2hLjU

[jamhar]

I would rather have the drone strikes over troops on the ground anyday.

My understanding is that potus signs off on every strike.

Thats the way i want it. compete accountability.

Its cost effective,

less casualties,

higher strike probability,

focus on fewer, higher profile targets,

fewer friendly forces in harms way

did i mention its cheaper?

you'll have to point me to a negative vs forces on the ground.

You really believe that drone targets are not identified by human resources on the ground? This is one of the concerns that they are being used to settle disputes between locals who are not necessarily terrorists - same as happened with the rendition program run by the CIA.

Drones do not replace ground intelligence resources, they augment it.

Drones can however replace ground forces when taking action, at least in the way the US is using drones presently.

I still cant see negatives in using drones in this manor. can you?

Drones are yet another killing technology, ain't going to change the enemies position/views. Just about every counter insurgency campaign has been bought to a successful conclusion by face to face negotiations, right now that is just not happening. Even Karzai is saying drone attacks are not helping with bringing about peace. All down to your POV,

Latest drone attack has allegedly killed 10 civilians (see URL below), women and children, but that's an unfortunate outcome of war; civilians always suffer more deaths than the armed forces.

http://indiatoday.in...k/1/250191.html

Drones, or airstrikes, I don't see where it makes a difference from the target's perspective They are still getting hammered by smart munitions with very little in the way of strike back capability, or prevention. Its akin to a sniper for the ground troops. Their leaders and dropping one by one, and there's not much they can do about. This is the kind of attrition they cannot afford.

From the US/NATO perspective i see a big difference. Instead of sending human assets with all the negative potential if they get shot down, we send in a drone. Same precision, lower cost, with longer loiter capability, and little of the negative potential.

I believe this is one of the reasons why Obama is able to pull the troops. Drones could have just as much effect with or without the large ground presences. Yes this is speculation on my part.

But getting back on point. Whether this campaign will be successful or not, is to be seen. It can be said that the use of drones has been highly successful so far, with little drawback (strictly from the US perspective).

Since no one will offer one

I can see one potential negative. The successful use of drones has clearly been demonstrated. And drones are relatively cheap to develop and use. Which means more countries can develop them, and they could become a more destabilizing force in the future. And potentially a negative for the US and NATO.

but presently, until something is done to make the use of drones painful, they will be a major factor.

Edited February 14, 2013 by jamhar

[simple1]

one of the reasons why Obama is able to pull the troops. Drones could have just as much effect with or without the large ground presences. Yes this is speculation on my part.

I can see one potential negative. The successful use of drones has clearly been demonstrated. And drones are relatively cheap to develop and use. Which means more countries can develop them, and they could become a more destabilizing force in the future. And potentially a negative for the US and NATO.

Sorry don't agree with you that drones have had any influence on US Administration decision to pull out of ground forces from Afghanistan. This is due to US domestic pressure and the specific request of the Afghan government.

Iran is claiming it is reverse engineering US drone technology, plus it's own R&D. If any foreign country attacked a NATO alliance country it would be an act of war and treated as such - maybe a leader of a foreign country would be stupid enough to do so, but would not last very long.

Edited February 14, 2013 by simple1

[jamhar]

Sorry don't agree with you that drones have had any influence on US Administration decision to pull out of ground forces from Afghanistan. This is due to US domestic pressure and the specific request of the Afghan government.

Iran is claiming it is reverse engineering US drone technology, plus it's own R&D. If any foreign country attacked a NATO alliance country it would be an act of war and treated as such - maybe a leader of a foreign country would be stupid enough to do so, but would not last very long.

on the troop pullout, we can agree to disagree on that one

Drones are glorified RC planes. You don't have to reverse engineer much to get a drone flying.

On the destabilizing effect, how about Iran attacking Israel with a drone? Missile technology is rocket science by definition and requires much in the way of development, but drones? who knows.

How about India and Pakistan dispute over Kashmir escalating to the use of drones? They are already shooting at each other.

Luckily true standoff drone technology requires communications with a satellite to control,

but a high altitude tethered balloon would work for communications relay for nearby targets.

[F430murci]

Obama and the licence to kill American. on FOX news

Here us the problem with that. Republicans are complete sour puses and would be singing the praises of drones if used by a Republucan president, but will condemn the action no matter what it is if done by a democratic president. At least most liberals can thing freely and independently of partisan politics. I am not talking about the liberals on welfare, I am speaking if those that form their beliefs and ideas based on logic than what somebody else, some church or some political party dictates.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Scott

[jamhar]

Well that didnt take long

"Drone strikes are illegal"

"Drone strikes are immoral"

Umm how soon can we buy some of them things?

Drone manufacturers target rising Gulf Arab demand

http://news.yahoo.com/drone-manufacturers-target-rising-gulf-arab-demand-165506366.htm